They have given up on the AWB and mag bans... they are choosing universal background checks as their hill to die on.

Organizing for Action is a PAC bought and paid for by Obama and company, it is the full force of his campaign apparatus but brought to bear outside of election season, this is what won him two terms and it is as dangerous as hell.

-We need an NRA counter campaign that refutes the claims in the above email.
-We need an unbiased poll through the Cato Institute or Reason Media.

If you enjoyed reading about "Email from Obama | They are making a stand for universal background checks" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

hso

February 8, 2013, 11:23 PM

I did as well.

I also made a blistering reference to the lie it represents.

CmdrSlander

February 8, 2013, 11:24 PM

I did as well.

I also made a blistering reference to the lie it represents.
did you make a thread about it?

CmdrSlander

February 8, 2013, 11:27 PM

ahem... ahem... this is big deal folks... ahem

The-Reaver

February 8, 2013, 11:29 PM

One step at a time. Eventually all will be confiscated. Typical government crap.

InkEd

February 8, 2013, 11:30 PM

They don't care wat you own because they will know about it and confiscate it! This is not paranoia but a thinly veiled reality.

FourTeeFive

February 8, 2013, 11:30 PM

Great statistics. I'm guessing they were pulled from a deep, dark place...

trueg50

February 8, 2013, 11:32 PM

Dont trust it one bit, the fine print will be the killer.

Like the proposed legislation for a Conceal carry permit in VT that requires a course in first aid, safe gun handling, "resurvival" and a bow hunters safety course.. wait what, Bow hunters safety?!

CmdrSlander

February 8, 2013, 11:33 PM

Great statistics. I'm guessing they were pulled from a deep, dark place...
It attributes them to "Republican Pollster Frank Luntz"

see, he's one of us! Let's all go turn in our guns!!

As an aside... that quote in your sig 'is not something Jefferson wrote, but rather comes from a passage he included in his "Legal Commonplace Book." The passage is from Cesare Beccaria's Essay on Crimes and Punishments.'

He just annotated it but some people though it was his writing.

CmdrSlander

February 8, 2013, 11:40 PM

It is worth noting that Republican pollster Frank Luntz is scum:
In 1997, the American Association for Public Opinion Research, of which Luntz was not a member, criticized Luntz for refusing to release poll data to support his claimed results "because of client confidentiality". Diane Colasanto, who was president of the AAPOR at the time, said
“ It is simply wanting to know, How many people did you question? What were the questions? We understand the need for confidentiality, but once a pollster makes results public, the information needs to be public. People need to be able to evaluate whether it was sound research.[23] ”
In 2000 he was censured by the National Council on Public Polls "for allegedly mischaracterizing on MSNBC the results of focus groups he conducted during the [2000] Republican Convention." In September 2004, MSNBC dropped Luntz from its planned coverage of that year's presidential debate, following a letter from Media Matters that outlined Luntz's GOP ties and questionable polling methodology.[24][25]
Luntz was awarded the 2010 PolitiFact Lie of the Year award for his promotion of the phrase 'government takeover' to refer to healthcare reform, starting in the spring of 2009. "'Takeovers are like coups,' Luntz wrote in a 28-page memo. 'They both lead to dictators and a loss of freedom.'"[26] In an editorial response, the Wall Street Journal wrote that "PolitiFact's decree is part of a larger journalistic trend that seeks to recast all political debates as matters of lies, misinformation and 'facts,' rather than differences of world view or principles." The editors of PolitiFact announced "We have concluded it is inaccurate to call the plan a government takeover." [27]

mokin

February 8, 2013, 11:45 PM

I am starting to think that maybe the big push at the federal level will be for universal background checks while letting the states fight it out over what gets registered and what sort of magazines they are allowed to accept.

Be sure to engage at the state level!

browneu

February 8, 2013, 11:57 PM

Here's my statistic.

100% of Americans support putting criminals and gangs behind bars.

Get rid of the criminal and get rid gun violence.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

CmdrSlander

February 8, 2013, 11:59 PM

Here's my statistic.

100% of Americans support putting criminals and gangs behind bars.

Get rid of the criminal and get rid gun violence.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
I would say at least 0.5% of Americans are members of criminal gangs...

They would be opposed. :)

JohnnyK

February 9, 2013, 12:11 AM

3 types of lies... lies, damn lies, and obama statistics.

Airborne Falcon

February 9, 2013, 12:16 AM

Yeah, the Universal Background checks are how they are going to come at this thing ... for now. They may even get it.

It's all a dog and pony show - smoke and mirrors. They are up to something else, just can't seem to put a finger on it at the moment.

mnrivrat

February 9, 2013, 12:17 AM

I would say at least 0.5% of Americans are members of criminal gangs...

They would be opposed.

The poll has a margin of error of + or - .05% so still valid :D

OpelBlitz

February 9, 2013, 12:22 AM

Here's my statistic.

100% of Americans support putting criminals and gangs behind bars.

Get rid of the criminal and get rid gun violence.

Not 100% of Americans. You're forgetting about most of Illinois government and the City of Chicago.

CmdrSlander

February 9, 2013, 12:27 AM

Not 100% of Americans. You're forgetting about most of Illinois government and the City of Chicago.
Most of the governments of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and to a certain extent Maryland...

OpelBlitz

February 9, 2013, 12:28 AM

Most of the governments of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and too a certain extent Maryland...Amen to that.

ball3006

February 9, 2013, 10:38 AM

Time to print up a batch of receipts pre dated whenever this law may be passed for each gun you have....chris3

Well, if they want them so bad, maybe we can get an actual compromise going. How about opening up that machine gun registry?

danez71

February 9, 2013, 12:52 PM

Here's my statistic.

100% of Americans support putting criminals and gangs behind bars.

Get rid of the criminal and get rid gun violence.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

Not 100% of Americans. You're forgetting about most of Illinois government and the City of Chicago.

Most of the governments of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and to a certain extent Maryland...

Dont forget about CA. They're talking about bans that are worse than NY. :what:

But I must make a correction. While they might be citizens, they are NOT Americans.

All of us need to get others to realize that attacking the 2A is attacking the Constitution.

Just like killing Americans with Drones with no proof of being a terrorist.

The Patriot Act undermining wire tapping, search and seizure laws.

The list goes on.

Q: If all of these things are good... why have taxes consistantly gone up and the quality of life gone down for most Americans?

A: Because all it has done is give the Government more power and weakened the Constitution which was created for the good of the people.

JRH6856

February 9, 2013, 01:02 PM

Well, if they want them so bad, maybe we can get an actual compromise going. How about opening up that machine gun registry?
Does anyone really think they would open up the registry and allow more access to the very type of firearm they claim they are trying to ban? :confused:

Solo

February 9, 2013, 01:04 PM

But we willhave universal background checks, so criminals and the mentally ill will never be able to get them!

JRH6856

February 9, 2013, 01:09 PM

And when the Surgeon General or the CDC determines that the desire to own a machine gun is an indicator of mental illness?

Solo

February 9, 2013, 01:12 PM

The DSM-V (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-5) will be out by then, and will not include the desire to own an automatic weapon as a criteria of mental illness.

barnbwt

February 9, 2013, 01:25 PM

Great statistics. I'm guessing they were pulled from a deep, dark place...
The usual place, I'm sure :D

I find it very informative to simply "redact" all numbers that come out of the Obama camp at this point (our 1.2% inflation is actually 9% by 1980 CPI calcs, for instance) as they are basically used in place of actual arguments. That slick little infographic/advertisement whatever you call it doesn't have a single reason for why we actually need background checks--all it asserts is that we supposedly "want" background checks. And even that is bogus.

If we all want background checks, why the hell do you need to tell us that? It's same as using the "common sense", "reasonable" etc. words to describe all their positions. If their stances were actually so, why would they need to constantly reinforce that perception?

TCB

*Does anyone else think that graphic looks like it should be advertising hamburgers?

montanaoffroader

February 9, 2013, 02:31 PM

First comes the "universal background check" which will require locating an FFL willing to do a transfer and paying an outrageous fee (If you think fees in most areas won't increase because of this, then you are nuts!). Then the ATF will be ordered to "tighten up" the FFL rules, eliminating most smaller "kitchen table" type FFL holders and imposing higher license fees and more restrictions on all FFL's, making it even harder to find an FFL willing to do transfers.

Also, expect lawsuits against FFL's offering private party transfers if any of the firearms transferred in this way are used in any crime at all.

I won't even get into the mental health aspects of this, I'll leave that one for someone else. :rolleyes:

CmdrSlander

February 9, 2013, 03:01 PM

First comes the "universal background check" which will require locating an FFL willing to do a transfer and paying an outrageous fee (If you think fees in most areas won't increase because of this, then you are nuts!). Then the ATF will be ordered to "tighten up" the FFL rules, eliminating most smaller "kitchen table" type FFL holders and imposing higher license fees and more restrictions on all FFL's, making it even harder to find an FFL willing to do transfers.

Also, expect lawsuits against FFL's offering private party transfers if any of the firearms transferred in this way are used in any crime at all.

I won't even get into the mental health aspects of this, I'll leave that one for someone else. :rolleyes:
IIRC, there is a law against suing gun makers and gun dealers for what a third party uses their products to do.

It was put in place after some ratbast**d lawyer in the 80-90s nearly sued Smith and Wesson into oblivion by suing them for any injury/homicide he could find that was committed with an S&W firearm, this was during the Brady bill/AWB hysteria and his goal was to single-handedly bring down the gun industry, had a law banning his practices not been passed the liability insurance required to make and sell guns would have driven up the price of firearms so much that they would have become the exclusive preserve of the super rich and he would have been successful.

Cal-gun Fan

February 9, 2013, 03:06 PM

I don't see what the fuss over background checks is for. I doubt any of us want criminals and the certified mentally ill getting firearms, so I'm fine with filling out a background check if it means it will be harder for them to get a gun.

Bartholomew Roberts

February 9, 2013, 03:10 PM

UBC will be their main thrust. If they can get a ban on semi-autos or magazines on top of that, they will not hesitate to do so. I wouldn't relax too much thinking that those options are off the table. They are both still possibilities.

And the fuss over Universal Background Checks is that it is very difficult to create a system that does this using the current structure that does not allow itself to be abused for gun registration. When somebody tells you they don't want you to have firearms, that they should be taken from you by force if necessary and then says "OK, just tell us the number and types of guns you have as a compromise."

The problem is not with the basic concept of a universal background check, it is with the implementation. If the NICS system was simply opened to the general public, I would have no problem with "universal" background checks.

The problem I have with all of the current proposals is that they require you to involve a 3rd party in the transaction. Not only is it none of their business, it will involve spending considerable time and money just to be able sell your own personal property to another citizen. Out here, many people don't have an FFL at all within a reasonable distance. If it becomes too difficult transfer a privately owned firearm, many will just ignore the rules.

Also, there is currently no way for the government to know who owns what, so how will the government know if an illegal transfer has taken place?

CmdrSlander

February 9, 2013, 03:32 PM

I don't see what the fuss over background checks is for. I doubt any of us want criminals and the certified mentally ill getting firearms, so I'm fine with filling out a background check if it means it will be harder for them to get a gun.
The fuss is that it would make it possible for the government to end lawful private gun ownership in the US by giving them total control over the transfer of firearms...

All they would have to do if we had UBC is defund NICS and boom, no more gun sales and transfers. All they would have to do then is wait for the current two or three generations of gun owners to die off, their children being unable to receive their firearms, would probably turn them in. Don't believe they would? What if you found an off paper MP40? Would you take it home and lock it up or would you immediately contact the ATF because you don't want to go to Federal Prison and ruin your family? I know what I would do.

What I would support is making NICS open to all via a smarthpone app and automated phone number, so I could do an NICS check, voluntarily on my private sales. I would do it, and I would relish the peace of mind. They should be making background checks easier to carry out for all involved parties, not pushing them in such a way that forces us to fight them.

This is what happens to private citizens that dare to hold on to firearms the Feds and the ATF say they should not have...

http://www.forgetthebox.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/waco-siege.jpg

Cal-gun Fan

February 9, 2013, 03:38 PM

I think that's quite a stretch.

Bartholomew Roberts

February 9, 2013, 03:40 PM

Our current system can be used to determine who purchased a specific gun; but is too manpower intensive to be used for confiscation. See: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_registration.html

As for opening up NICS, NICS was specifically forbidden to everyone on a bipartisan basis due to privacy concerns. If anyone can check at will whether you are a prohibited person or not, lots of people will want to satisfy their curiousity.

I think that is quite a stretch

Your own state has ALREADY used registration to confiscate registered firearms on several occasions and you think that is a stretch?

CmdrSlander

February 9, 2013, 03:42 PM

I think that's quite a stretch.
Oh yes, it is.

I'm totally paranoid....

Perhaps they wouldn't use it to end private firearms ownership but they could certainly take it hostage... imagine another Sandy Hook occurs in a universal bcg nation, the president could, by EO, say "The gun control in this country is broken, there will be no more gun sales until congress compromises and institutes reforms."

If you think that is far fetched, consider that Clinton destroyed millions of vintage M1911s, M1903s and M1s instead of allowing the CMP to sell them for no other reason but to spite the gun culture. You have to be a member of a gun club to buy from the CMP, criminals would never had access to these firearms but he did it anyway, as a show of his resolve.

More reasonably, I don't like giving the government more control over anything. The NCIS system needs to be improved and private systems need access to it. UBC are very easy to thwart. Do you honestly believe a determined mass killer is going to be stopped by a background check? In about an hour I could find someone willing to sell me narcotics, do you think it would be that hard to find someone willing to sell me an AR15 without a background check?

CmdrSlander

February 9, 2013, 03:43 PM

Our current system can be used to determine who purchased a specific gun; but is too manpower intensive to be used for confiscation. See: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_registration.html

As for opening up NICS, NICS was specifically forbidden to everyone on a bipartisan basis due to privacy concerns. If anyone can check at will whether you are a prohibited person or not, lots of people will want to satisfy their curiousity.

Your own state has ALREADY used registration to confiscate registered firearms on several occasions and you think that is a stretch?
Truth. There it is.

CmdrSlander

February 9, 2013, 03:46 PM

Our current system can be used to determine who purchased a specific gun; but is too manpower intensive to be used for confiscation. See: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_registration.html

As for opening up NICS, NICS was specifically forbidden to everyone on a bipartisan basis due to privacy concerns. If anyone can check at will whether you are a prohibited person or not, lots of people will want to satisfy their curiousity.

Your own state has ALREADY used registration to confiscate registered firearms on several occasions and you think that is a stretch?
You know there are background check websites that will do the same thing for you if you have the cash?

Perhaps we could set it up to use driver's license numbers instead of name/state/address so you have to be face to face with the person and they have to give you information that you couldn't easily know off hand (I know my friends names and states, I have no idea what their DL numbers are).

Steel Horse Rider

February 9, 2013, 03:54 PM

All you have to do is put the state of residence into the equation in order to understand the perspective of Cal-Gun Fan, he was deprived of his natural rights long ago so he cannot miss something he doesn't have..... Perspective is the key to understanding.

Bartholomew Roberts

February 9, 2013, 03:55 PM

You know there are background check websites that will do the same thing for you if you have the cash?

Those sites are just databases of publically available courthouse information. This is not the same as accessing NICS, which is an FBI-maintained database that may include some information that isn't publically available (which raises another issue concerning security of law enforcement investigations if NICS is publically available). I'd also note that if those private websites are any example, you'd be talking about a fee of $50-100 to transfer a firearm - which is a pretty substantial barrier to those with less discretionary cash.

rugerman

February 9, 2013, 04:00 PM

I would like to say that I'm an American, a life member of the NRA and a Republican and I don't support anything that the Liar in Chief supports. I also have never been polled on this subject and don't know of ANYONE who has been. And I also think that our government is going down the wrong road real fast.

FJRBob

February 9, 2013, 04:03 PM

When I applied for my concealed carry license in Arkansas they did a complete backround check and since then whenever i purchase a firearm all I do is show my CCL sign a form and I'm gone. Question will they if this passes (I hope not) have to run another check or only list the weapon I am purchasing? Sometimes I am a little dense, must come with old age. Thanks Bob Ramos..

blaisenguns

February 9, 2013, 04:09 PM

Time to print up a batch of receipts pre dated whenever this law may be passed for each gun you have

Well universal background checks, go hand in hand with registration. I am glad I sold all my guns. To bad all the people I sold them to have been in the obituary the last couple years, so they can not back it up.

HankR

February 9, 2013, 08:43 PM

Dont trust it one bit, the fine print will be the killer.

(emphasis added)

I don't need to read the "fine print" to realize that universal background checks == total registration == eventual confiscation. The only questions remaining, as alluded to above, is do they shoot your dog and your wife before they burn your house compound or after?

hueytaxi

February 9, 2013, 09:46 PM

The truth in UBC's. If granted to apply to all gun transfers there will be no borrowing a gun at the range for a moment, much less borrowing one to take hunting. take iin your gun for repair, and have to run a UBC on the armorer? Forget teaching your 11 y/o kid to shoot unless you run a UBC on him and let's not even think about handing down family heirlooms in your will. How could you ever have a gun auction?

HOOfan_1

February 9, 2013, 10:08 PM

I think that's quite a stretch.

I am sure that statement has been made by many a doubter just before a totalitarian regime has taken over.

Most free societies do not fall all at once, but a little at a time, and the "not my problem" and the "oh well I guess I can live with that" crowd just sit by and let it happen

Bartholomew Roberts

February 9, 2013, 10:52 PM

On the plus side, all of the guns you own before any UBC is passed will be much more valuable since they are effectively unregistered. Of course, that extra value would only be realized if they were sold on the black market; but I'm sure if you make someone's current collection worth two or three times its value while allowing them to replace it at regular prices, nobody will be tempted to sell the untrackable stuff on the black market and replace it through an FFL and pocket the difference.

JayBird

February 9, 2013, 11:10 PM

I don't see what the fuss over background checks is for. I doubt any of us want criminals and the certified mentally ill getting firearms, so I'm fine with filling out a background check if it means it will be harder for them to get a gun.

Uh yeah. Cause background checks have clearly stopped the mass shooters of late from getting their hands on guns. And background checks clearly stop criminals from getting their hands on guns. /rollseyes

I'm sorry, but I dont want the rest of the country to go the route that your home state has. I like my freedoms.

Let individual states decide how state residents can sell their private property to other residents that also reside in the same state. That is kinda how The Constitution was written. One of the worst things about a federal law banning private sales would be just one more stretch of the old commerce clause.

r1derbike

February 10, 2013, 12:12 AM

The OP's chart caused me to directly send an email to the President, about the tactics and propaganda being used in the gun-ban agenda. After spending nearly 2 hours constructing a letter than was neither insulting nor inflammatory, I sent it, and then it hit me.

This administration DOES NOT CARE about truth, justice, and the American way. They will not let untruths, lies, or propaganda stand in their way to accomplish their goals. THEY DO NOT CARE!

I felt my time had been wasted, or worse, branded a dissident within the present party, because I would not drink the party Kool-Aid, for the betterment (the great lie) of society under their rule.

Then, I thought, if not for millions of us, expressing our views and disgust and disappointment at what our leaders have become, then what is our system of government for? Collectively, millions of our voices have already been heard, and we have probably been labeled dissidents for exercising our First Amendment right to pen and speak our thoughts, no matter it displeases the powers that be. But, so what?

I still came away from writing my letter, that the present administration doesn't care about our concerns; it contradicts their ill-induced agenda of eventual total disarmament, and the global new world order that is being forged behind our backs, behind closed doors, with the financial heads of the entire world, mouths salivating at the ripe pickings that may come their way.

If enough people dissent (peacefully), we may have a shot at slowing-down the gun-grabbers agenda. I'd hate to think what a disarmed world would be like. I'm guessing new world order dictatorial rule and oppression would soon follow.

Forgive my momentary dive into apathy. I feel better now, renewed actually to keep-up the campaign of writing to our representatives who would actually make a difference, and who are supportive of our cause.

I just had to let the Commander-in-Chief know how I felt, if ever the feedback makes it further than some aid's shredder.

Vector

February 10, 2013, 12:35 AM

Our current system can be used to determine who purchased a specific gun; but is too manpower intensive to be used for confiscation. See: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_registration.html

As for opening up NICS, NICS was specifically forbidden to everyone on a bipartisan basis due to privacy concerns. If anyone can check at will whether you are a prohibited person or not, lots of people will want to satisfy their curiousity.

Your own state has ALREADY used registration to confiscate registered firearms on several occasions and you think that is a stretch?

Your reply to Cal-gun Fan is right on the money as evidenced by this thread I started on this very subject;

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=702303

It wont be too long before they restrict people from owning firearms for traffic violations.

`

If you enjoyed reading about "Email from Obama | They are making a stand for universal background checks" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!